DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Claims 1-9 in the reply filed on 06/30/26 is acknowledged. Therefore, non-elected Claims 10-23 are withdrawn from consideration.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the outer surface." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The term “about” in Claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention (for example, it is explicitly unclear how far above “1” a given capacity ratio can be yet still be considered as less than “about” 1).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-5, 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hwang et al. (US 2010/0285359).
Regarding Claim 1, Hwang teaches a negative electrode active material for a rechargeable lithium battery (Abstract). Hwang teaches that the negative electrode active material comprises a crystalline carbon core (“crystalline carbon”) including pores therein (“plurality of pores”), and amorphous carbon which forms a shell on an outer surface of the crystalline carbon core and is disposed within the pores of the crystalline carbon core ([0018], [0033]). Hwang teaches that metal nanoparticles (“lithiophilic material”) are dispersed within the pores of the crystalline carbon core, and in particular, dispersed within the amorphous carbon that is disposed within the pores of the crystalline carbon core ([0018]). Hwang teaches that preferred metal nanoparticles include silicon, tin, and aluminum nanoparticles, as well as combinations thereof ([0029]).
Hwang does not explicitly teach that the metal nanoparticles are not present on the outer surface of the crystalline carbon core.
However, it is first noted that while Figure 1 appears to illustrate metal nanoparticles also being present in the amorphous carbon shell on the outer surface of the crystalline carbon core, none of said metal nanoparticles are depicted as being in direct physical contact with said outer surface, and Hwang explicitly teaches that the structure of the negative electrode active material is not limited to that which is illustrated in Figure 1. Furthermore, Hwang explicitly teaches that the metal nanoparticles are intended to be dispersed well within the pores of the crystalline carbon core in order to reduce the probability of direct contact with an electrolyte and improve cycle-life characteristics ([0019]). Hwang teaches that if the metal nanoparticles are allowed to be on the outer surface of the crystalline carbon core, side reactions with an electrolyte increase and cycle-life characteristics are deteriorated ([0019]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill in the art would form the negative electrode active material of Hwang such that the metal nanoparticles are dispersed within the pores of the crystalline carbon core but not present on the outer surface of the crystalline carbon core given that the metal nanoparticles are intended to be dispersed well within the pores of the crystalline carbon core in order to reduce the probability of direct contact with an electrolyte and improve cycle-life characteristics, and their presence on the outer surface of the crystalline carbon core would increase electrolyte side reactions and deteriorate cycle-life characteristics, as taught by Hwang (especially given that none of the metal nanoparticles are depicted by Hwang in Figure 1 as being in direct physical contact with the outer surface of the crystalline carbon corer, and Hwang explicitly teaches that the structure of the negative electrode active material is not limited to that which is illustrated in Figure 1).
Regarding Claim 2, Hwang teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 1, as previously described.
Hwang teaches that the metal nanoparticles are included in an amount of from 5-30 wt% based on a total amount of the negative electrode active material ([0026]).
Regarding Claim 3, Hwang teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 1, as previously described.
As previously described (See Claim 1), the metal nanoparticles include silicon, tin, and aluminum particles, as well as combinations thereof.
Regarding Claim 4, Hwang teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 1, as previously described.
As previously described (See Claim 1), the metal nanoparticles include silicon, tin, and aluminum particles, as well as combinations thereof.
Furthermore, lithiophilic materials such as Pt, Al, Mg, Zn, Ag, Au, Si, Sn, Co, an alloy thereof, or a combination thereof are disclosed by Applicant as each being a catalyst that induces lithium ions to be reduced and precipitated into lithium metal within the pores of the instantly claimed negative electrode active material during charging (See at least [0012]-[0013] and Examples 1-8 of Applicant’s own PG Publication).
Therefore, the metal nanoparticles of Hwang (i.e. silicon, tin, and aluminum particles, as well as combinations thereof) are each interpreted as being a catalyst that induces lithium ions to be reduced and precipitated into lithium metal within the pores of the negative electrode active material.
Regarding Claim 5, Hwang teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 1, as previously described.
Hwang teaches a rechargeable lithium battery comprising a positive electrode and a negative electrode facing one another, wherein the negative electrode comprises the negative electrode active material ([0041]-[0043]).
Regarding Claim 8, Hwang teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 5, as previously described.
Hwang teaches a rechargeable lithium battery comprising a positive electrode and a negative electrode, wherein the negative electrode comprises the negative electrode active material ([0041]-[0043]).
Furthermore, Applicant discloses that the instantly claimed rechargeable battery is considered a composite rechargeable lithium battery of a lithium ion battery and a lithium metal battery based on adjustment(s) to charging voltage ([0065]).
Therefore, because (1) Hwang teaches that the rechargeable lithium battery comprises all of the positively recited structural limitations of Claim 1 (including a crystalline carbon core having lithiophilic metal nanoparticles inside the pores of the crystalline carbon core but not present on the outer surface of the crystalline carbon core), and (2) functionality as a composite rechargeable lithium battery as instantly claimed is merely a resultant characteristic of the structure of the instantly claimed rechargeable battery, then the rechargeable lithium battery of Hwang is interpreted to be and/or function as a composite rechargeable lithium battery of a lithium ion battery and a lithium metal battery.
Claims 6, 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hwang et al. (US 2010/0285359), and further in view of Verbrugge et al. (“The effect of large negative potentials and overcharge on the electrochemical performance of lithiated carbon”).
Regarding Claim 6, Hwang teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 5, as previously described.
Hwang does not explicitly teach that the negative electrode active material includes lithium metal precipitated inside the pores of the negative electrode active material.
However, Verbrugge teaches the effects of negative potential excursions on the behavior of lithiated carbon electrodes (Abstract). Verbrugge teaches that small precipitates of lithium in carbon negative electrodes, induced by the application of a potential at the electrode less than 0 V (e.g. -200 mV), enhances capacity characteristics of the electrode (Abstract, Summary).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill in the art would include small precipitates of lithium (“lithium metal precipitated”) induced by the application of a potential at the negative electrode less than 0 V (e.g. -200 mV), as taught by Verbrugge, inside the pores of the negative electrode active material of Hwang, given that such precipitates would help enhance capacity characteristics.
Regarding Claim 9, Hwang teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 5, as previously described.
Hwang does not explicitly teach a driving voltage unit configured to apply a potential of the negative electrode at 0 V or less.
However, Verbrugge teaches the effects of negative potential excursions on the behavior of lithiated carbon electrodes (Abstract). Verbrugge teaches that small precipitates of lithium in carbon negative electrodes, induced by the application of a potential at the electrode less than 0 V (e.g. -200 mV) by a potentiostat, enhances capacity characteristics of the electrode (Experimental, Abstract, Summary).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill in the art would further utilize a potentiostat (“driving voltage unit”) to apply a potential at the negative electrode less than 0 V (e.g. -200 mV) to induce small precipitates of lithium, as taught by Verbrugge, inside the pores of the negative electrode active material of Hwang, given that such precipitates would help enhance capacity characteristics.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hwang et al. (US 2010/0285359), and further in view of Carney et al. (US 2022/0029162).
Regarding Claim 7, Hwang teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 5, as previously described.
Hwang does not explicitly teach that the capacity ratio of the negative electrode to the positive electrode is less than about 1.
However, Carney teaches a secondary battery cell (Abstract). Carney teaches that a capacity ratio of the anode to the cathode of the secondary battery cell is 0.5 to 0.99 ([0087]). Carney teaches that optimization of capacity ratio helps control cathode instability, prevent side reactions and electrolyte decomposition, and enhance battery lifetime characteristics.
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill in the art would control the capacity ratio of the negative electrode to the positive electrode of Hwang to be 0.5 to 0.99, as taught by Carney, in order to help optimize cathode instability, prevent side reactions and electrolyte decomposition, and enhance battery lifetime characteristics, as taught by Carney, especially given that such a modification would have involved only routine experimentation with a reasonable expectations of success based on Carney’s disclosure.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW W VAN OUDENAREN whose telephone number is (571)270-7595. The examiner can normally be reached 7AM-3PM EST M-F.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Matthew Martin can be reached at 5712707871. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MATTHEW W VAN OUDENAREN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1728
Prosecution Insights